Is V Perpendicular a Subset of U Perpendicular in Subspaces of Rn?

  • Thread starter stunner5000pt
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Subspace
In summary, if U and V are proper subsets of Rn and are subspaces, with U being a proper subset of V, it can be proven that V perp is a proper subset of U perp. This is because both U perp and V perp contain elements that are perpendicular to U and V, respectively, and do not contain any elements in common (except for the zero vector). Therefore, U perp is smaller than V perp, as it only contains the elements that are perpendicular to V and not U. This can be related to the theorem that the perpendicular space to a bigger subspace is smaller than the perpendicular subspace to the subspace contained in the bigger subspace.
  • #1
stunner5000pt
1,465
4
Suppose U, V are proper subsets of Rn and are subspaces and U is a proper subset of V. PRove that V perp is a proper subset of U perp

Ok SO let U ={u1, u2, ..., un}
let V = {v1,...vn}
let V perp = {x1,x2,..., xn}
let U perp = {w1,...wn}
certainly u1 . w1 = 0
(u1 + u2 ) . (w1+w2) = 0
cu1 . cw1 = 0

everything till now is pretty much basically understood
i can't find a wayu to maek a proof work... Any hints would be appreciated!
I really want to be able to get this one!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
can anyone help?

i am still stuck on this problem and i need to solve it ...

ok so far i get this part
if U perp is orthognal to U then U perp is orthogonal to V.
If V perp is orthognal to V then V perp is orthogonal to U
this V perp is orthogonal to U perp

then Wn . Xn = 0
now [tex] U^{\bot} \bigcap U = \{0\} [/tex]
and [tex] U^{\bot} \bigcap V = \{0\} [/tex]
similarly it applies for V perp
so both U perp and V perp include elements that are perpendicular to U and V and contain everything (but zero) that is perpendicular to U and V, thus not included in U and V.
Now how would i relate U perp and V perp to each other. Is there a theorem that says that the perpendicular space to a bigger subspace is smaller than the perpendicular subspace to the subspace contained in the bigger subspace??
 
  • #3


First, we need to show that V⊥ is a subset of U⊥. This means we need to prove that if x∈V⊥, then x∈U⊥.

Let x∈V⊥. This means that x⋅v=0 for all v∈V. Since U is a proper subset of V, this means that there exists at least one vector u∈U that is not in V. Therefore, x⋅u=0 since u is not in V. This shows that x∈U⊥, and thus V⊥ is a subset of U⊥.

Next, we need to show that V⊥ is a proper subset of U⊥. This means we need to prove that there exists at least one vector in U⊥ that is not in V⊥.

Since U is a proper subset of V, there exists at least one vector v∈V that is not in U. This means that v⋅u=0 for all u∈U. However, since v is not in U, there exists at least one vector u∈U such that u⋅v≠0. This shows that v∉U⊥. Therefore, there exists at least one vector in U⊥ (namely, u) that is not in V⊥. This proves that V⊥ is a proper subset of U⊥.
 

FAQ: Is V Perpendicular a Subset of U Perpendicular in Subspaces of Rn?

How do you prove that V⊥ is a subset of U⊥?

To prove that V⊥ is a subset of U⊥, you need to show that every element in V⊥ is also in U⊥. This can be done by showing that if an element is orthogonal to every vector in V, then it is also orthogonal to every vector in U.

What is the significance of proving that V⊥ is a subset of U⊥?

Proving that V⊥ is a subset of U⊥ is important because it helps to establish the relationship between two subspaces. It also helps to show that the orthogonal complement of a subspace is a subspace itself.

Can you provide an example of proving V⊥ is a subset of U⊥?

Sure, let's say we have two subspaces, V = {(x, y, z) | x + y + z = 0} and U = {(x, y, z) | x - y + 2z = 0}. To prove that V⊥ is a subset of U⊥, we need to show that any vector in V⊥ is also in U⊥. So, let's take a vector (a, b, c) in V⊥. This means that (a, b, c) is orthogonal to every vector in V. Therefore, (a, b, c) must also be orthogonal to every vector in U, which means it is in U⊥.

Why is it important to understand the concept of orthogonal complements?

Understanding orthogonal complements is important because it is a fundamental concept in linear algebra and is used in various applications, such as solving systems of linear equations, finding the best-fit line for a set of data, and performing projections. It also helps to understand the relationship between subspaces and how they can be used to simplify calculations.

Are there any properties of orthogonal complements that can make proving V⊥ is a subset of U⊥ easier?

Yes, there are a few properties that can make proving V⊥ is a subset of U⊥ easier. For example, if V is a subspace of U, then V⊥ is a superset of U⊥. This means that if we can show that every vector in V is also in U, then we can automatically prove that every vector in V⊥ is also in U⊥. Another property is that the orthogonal complement of the orthogonal complement of a subspace is the subspace itself. This means that if we can show that V⊥ is a subset of U⊥, then we can also prove that U⊥ is a subset of V⊥, making the proof simpler.

Similar threads

Replies
17
Views
5K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Back
Top